"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, same rule applies to the UFO phenomenon. I've never seen one single shred of evidence of the
paranormal that could hold up in a court of law. "

I've posted this before, but I think this is a good time to show it again. This comment above is a perfect example of what I'm about to say. The
naysayers need to define what they will accept as "evidence that could hold up in court":

The way I see this whole debate, and it applies to a lot of other topics here on ATS from Chemtrails to UFOs to whether or not Jesus was an actual
person, is this: Whatever "Proof" someone can supply, debunkers automatically respond with "that's not acceptable proof." As in, it's not really
proof to begin with. What we first need to do is to create a viable list of "acceptable proofs," that can be agreed upon by both sides as being
genuine. When a valid "proof" is revealed, then both sides can go on to the next topic of what agency is behind it, or who's doing it, or what do the
actual planes that deliver the stuff look like, etc. - and not before a valid proof has been submitted.

The only problem with this method is that debunkers don't tend to think anything is valid proof, so nothing anyone could submit about chemtrails,
UFOs, Jesus, etc. can ever get past the stage of whether or not they're even admitted to as being real. So, both sides end up going round and round
in circles, arguing "(it) does exist," (it) doesn't exist." To show what I mean, I will apply it to this scenario:

Let's say the topic of discussion is "Abraham Lincoln." Some people will say he was a real person, others debunk him and say he didn't exist, he was
just an "amalgamation" of various people and ideas. Here's how that debate would go on ATS:
ABEisMyMAN: He was real and several documents talk about him and show his signature.

LincolnDebunker: You can't show the authenticity of those documents, so I think they're fake. Documents can easily be faked, that's a fact. Plus,
how do we know that's his actual signature? It was probably just some nobody in the 1880s that signed all those "authentic" signatures and we have no
way of proving who did it today. So, those signatures are unnaceptable as proof.

ABEisMyMAN: Okay, what about all the contemporous reports about him? People actually knew him and talked about him.

LincolnDebunker: I've seen contemporous reports about "Santa Claus." Does that mean he is a real person? Remember Clement C. Moore's eyewitness
account of an alleged sighting back in the 1800s? Does that prove "Santa Claus" was an actual person? No, it does not, anymore than those "stories"
about "Abraham Lincoln." What do you have next for me?

ABEisMyMAN: Well, there are numerous photographs....

LincolnDebunker: Photoshopped. Next.

ABEisMyMAN: There were many people that lived at the same time as he did....

LincolnDebunker: And they're all dead, so we can't put them on the witness stand. Anything they would or could have said would be second-hand
information, therefore the court would not allow it, as it is heresay evidence.

ABEisMyMAN: Ummm.... They've got this hair sample. That should be real evidence. DNA evidence. You can't argue with DNA!

LincolnDebunker: A hair sample? Of who? Or what? It could be hair from my neighbor's camel. No, you say it's a hair sample of this "Abraham
Lincoln" character, I say he didn't exist, so it can't be a hair sample from him. You haven't convinced me of anything. Now, go back to your padded
room, adjust your tinfoil hat and leave me here in my real world.

You see where I'm going with this. I'm sure anyone can come up with other types of "proofs" about Abraham Lincoln that can be just as easily
dismissed as not being "real" proof. So, where does this leave us with the topic of paranormal activities? It leaves us squarely at square one.
There will always be people who believe in something, and can show proof about it; and there will always be the debunkers, who will not accept any
kind of proof and keep on denying the subject in question, ad infinitum. And while they're denying it, they'll throw in a few snide comments about
how the original person can't see reality like sane people; or that he needs to adjust his "tinfoil" hat; or that he just wants to have additional
fodder to prove his "religious beliefs" so he creates this topic as a common-ground basis to prove his original theory even exists in the first place.
You've seen the type of comments I mean. What do we do? Apparently, we can do nothing as long as there are so many close-minded and rude people out
there.

Those who shriek the loudest against any particular thing being real, and not just imagined, are those who have never seen anything inexplicable
before. If they did, it would totally shatter the comfort bubble they have become encased in, then all their beliefs would have to be replaced.. So
fear of the unknown is a root cause. This exposes them as having the philosophy of a child after all. Some people refuse to grow up.

When it comes to the extra normal one should know that if someone is requesting courtroom sort of proof you already are dealing with a biased person.
Would they settle for lab sort of proof? They have all this but its never going to be let go on the public.

Consider one said recorded conversation with disembodied spirits......."Have you come to destroy us before our time"?

ok lets just say that modern science could demonstrate this in a lab with a possessed person. Do you folks think they are going to release it and more
on like some greatest hits album? Lets see they could call it "nite walkers" or "earth roamers" out of body, their original body by not out of the
game just yet. And just how would demonstrating this do anything for the status Q thats operated by the Chief of Demons himself?

For some people the mere though of some subjects, such as (but not limited to) the paranormal, can create heightened levels of anxiety. This can lead
to sleepless nights hiding under the bed covers in a cold sweat wondering if the bogey man is really going to jump out of the wardrobe to get them.

So to put themselves at ease these people will regularly reassure each other that it's all just crazy stories being made up by people with nothing
better to do than try to fool everyone that the world is not a black and white than they've been made to believe.

I don't think this is very common. I would absolutely LOVE there to be proof of the paranormal, or aliens. LOVE IT. Perhaps due to this desire for it
to be real I take a microscope to the evidence and want to see real proof, before chasing a fantasy.

The only proof you can get is when it happens and thats it in my eye's, mind and body but you can't look for it after it's happened in a forced
way.Look at the Roman army ghost's/Stone Recording or what ever but a guy called Harry Martindale had apparently witness this and since numerous
people have been down to the area where it was meant to happen and have seen nothing.

That's entertainment I'm talking about real stuff that happens in homes etc not bloody David Blaine.
Let get back to basic with this and stop all the long confusing terms being posted as the talk is boring...I have seen stuff and thats all that
matters BUT yes research and talk about so called claims like a history book but lets not dismiss honest claims but lets take down the faker's and
hoaxers as I'm all for that.

originally posted by: humphreysjim
As someone who considers himself a passionate (not obsessive) skeptic, I think I can answer this one.

We aren't trying to prove you wrong, we are trying to get you to prove yourselves right, there's a difference. As for why we can be passionate about
skepticism, it goes way beyond claims of the paranormal. It's an entire way of scientific and critical thinking we are trying to teach people the
beauty and importance of. This branches into politics, religion, wars, etc, and affects every element of our lives.

The way we think literally shapes the world, if our method of investigation is faulty, the consequences can be absolutely dire. It's absolutely a big
deal.

originally posted by: humphreysjim
As someone who considers himself a passionate (not obsessive) skeptic, I think I can answer this one.

We aren't trying to prove you wrong, we are trying to get you to prove yourselves right, there's a difference. As for why we can be passionate about
skepticism, it goes way beyond claims of the paranormal. It's an entire way of scientific and critical thinking we are trying to teach people the
beauty and importance of. This branches into politics, religion, wars, etc, and affects every element of our lives.

The way we think literally shapes the world, if our method of investigation is faulty, the consequences can be absolutely dire. It's absolutely a big
deal.

originally posted by: humphreysjim
As someone who considers himself a passionate (not obsessive) skeptic, I think I can answer this one.

We aren't trying to prove you wrong, we are trying to get you to prove yourselves right, there's a difference. As for why we can be passionate about
skepticism, it goes way beyond claims of the paranormal. It's an entire way of scientific and critical thinking we are trying to teach people the
beauty and importance of. This branches into politics, religion, wars, etc, and affects every element of our lives.

The way we think literally shapes the world, if our method of investigation is faulty, the consequences can be absolutely dire. It's absolutely a big
deal.

originally posted by: humphreysjim
As someone who considers himself a passionate (not obsessive) skeptic, I think I can answer this one.

We aren't trying to prove you wrong, we are trying to get you to prove yourselves right, there's a difference. As for why we can be passionate about
skepticism, it goes way beyond claims of the paranormal. It's an entire way of scientific and critical thinking we are trying to teach people the
beauty and importance of. This branches into politics, religion, wars, etc, and affects every element of our lives.

The way we think literally shapes the world, if our method of investigation is faulty, the consequences can be absolutely dire. It's absolutely a big
deal.

Some skeptics are just ignorant people exploiting their google-fu and lording their uni educations over those who don't have them. No, not all of
them, but enough to have diminished the value of scepticism in popular debates.

It's good you mentioned Shermer as he's a good example to make my point with. He spent years ridiculing people who expressed opinions and beliefs
about their experiences. It was all 'aliens' and 'magical thinking' and 'will to believe.' It wasn't about treating people with respect or
understanding, it was more often about beating them down with explanations that often dismissed the percipient altogether. He played to the skeptical
crowd and became one of the Top 5 Western media Skeptics. As you mention, he was biased towards the, "I'm right, you're wrong" approach.

Two years ago Shermer had an experience he couldn't explain. He couldn't accuse himself of 'magical thinking' and his education is good enough that he
couldn't put it down to ignorance either. It wasn't a second-hand anecdote so he couldn't dismiss it as sloppy mindsets or hoaxing. So he was left
with an 'anomalous experience' that defied his capacity to explain it. To his dismay, he had to face the realisation that just maybe other
people had been both truthful and accurate when sharing weird experiences.

This is what he said in the days afterwards:

[...]if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle
unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious.

Shermer didn't abandon his skeptical stance and he hasn't been sighted on some Tibetan mountain. All he did was admit to an experience he couldn't
explain. The reaction of his (previously loyal) followers was to throw him under the bus and question his intelligence. They weren't capable of
agnosticism because they lacked the self-knowledge to know how prejudiced they were...and remain. They filled the comments sections of sites with
hysterical ad-homs and turned on him.

Not all sceptical people or Skeptics are dismissive. My favourite ATSers tend to be critical thinkers with reasonable, open minds - agnostics. Many of
them have passed through the 'unexplained moment' and, like Shermer, learned to accept 'the mysterious' exists.

We cant drag the spiritual into hard science for examination that will satisfy the question......and its been done believe me. They have had
poltergeists under lab examination.....but good luck getting them to talk about it. And anyone who really knows about, has studied ect the poltergeist
phenomena understands why an academic wouldn't talk about, in mixed company, what went on in the lab. As well why a respected institution wouldn't as
well.

And....AND...about skeptics......some are doing the work of wet blanketing the issue knowing its truth but missioned to smoke screen ect bash
advocates and those claiming to know ect, ect. There really is the need for damage control by those that work with the disembodied.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.